FBI Stops Satellite Phones

redbird writes "According to this article, the FBI is temporarily (although they have a different meaning for that word) blocking satellite phones that would allow world wide wireless service because such communications are difficult to tap."

Comments

a few things

[m|sTaMoFo]

1: wiretapping is worthless against criminals. Criminals learned long ago to always speak in code over phone lines. Wiretapping only exists today for the monitoring of political groups that might pose a threat to the rampant corruption in American government, especially in agencies like the FBI that are used against the American people for political reasons.

2: hmmm.... looks like nations are becoming obsolete. About fucking time. A few more decades and they can just drop the facades and the world will be able to go corporate!

Gov & indiv paranoia connected

[jabber]

Point well taken, but as I see it, the two issues are strongly interconnected.

I agree that distrust of the establishment is the duty of all citizens. After all, the gummint is there to represent US, it is there to work for US and to carry out our orders. We tell the gov what we want by voting. [If politicians tell us what we want to hear to get elected, and then do their thing, the system fails, but that's another matter]

But as people are distrustful of the gov, their distrust is unfocusable. It becomes a heat-seeker, and targets the strange, the unknown and the different. A black family in a white neighborhood, or the smiling stranger in a faceless crowd.

My point is that the overall level of distrust in the country is such, that it is out of control. It should be applied rationally, but there's simply too much of it. Each day we hear about murders, molesters, shooting sprees... Who has time to think through the latest anti-encryption legislation and what it really means, when they're worried about "road rage", Tim McVeigh and the kids in the local high-school??

The government is (intentionally or not) playing the same game that makes the insurance companies tick. The probability of any given individual being a homocidal freak is small, but eveyone has to pay [with their liberties] to provide some semblance of security. This is why kids have to pass through metal detectors on their way into a school. They are uniformly subjected to heavy-handed authoritative behavior control, to protect them from the freak. But the message they receive is that any one of them might be a freak, and so they should be afraid of everyone.

Our rights and liberties are being reduced to the lowest common denominator level. It's akin to political correctness - you're not allowed to do anything that someone, somewhere, somehow, might construe as offensive or threatening. You can no longer extend your hand to a stranger, because there is the potential that you will hit them. So if you hold out your hand, you're likely to get a hand-cuff on your wrist as a result.

Looking back, I truly regret making that girl nervous enough to call the police - the thought never crossed my 'eager to help' mind. But more importantly, I'm sorry that she lives with so much fear in her life. I'm sorry she'll pass it on to her kids and friends and co-workers - just because some freak tried to flag her down on the highway.

I'm sorry that she's so concerned about her immediate safety, about the threat of another individual, that she doesn't think rationally, and is therefore likely to vote for a liberty abridging ordinance to settle her worried little mind. And this, Kaa, is how being paranoid of individuals is connected to being paranoid of the government - at least in this freak's head.

The Transparent Citizen

[jetson123]

Let's look at the larger context:

• Federal three-letter agencies strongly oppose export of encryption. The move is clearly not designed to make encryption inaccessible to criminals (since it's easy to get around the export controls), but to prevent strong encryption from becoming part of the day-to-day communications infrastructure.

• Upcoming cell phone standards must include GPS or similar in the handsets so that the location of each phone can be determined easily.

• Echelon and other projects suggest that widespread monitoring of voice and data communications has been carried out in the past and will continue to be carried out.

• Store and mail order purchase data is recorded for marketing purposes, but also available to law enforcement on demand (c.f. Lewinsky's book buying habits). Purchases of some legal materials (e.g., hydroponics, fertilizer, etc.) could result in closer scrutiny by law enforcement.

• With some current anti-theft devices and car computers that record trip data for maintenance purposes, the whereabouts of your car and your driving habits may be recorded and available to law enforcement.

• Public, traffic, and private surveillance cameras are becoming very commonplace, and their data is increasingly networked and stored in digital form.

• Law enforcement, banks, and medical providers are collecting DNA databases, fingerprint databases, iris databases, dental databases, medical databases, and other biometric databases for a variety of purposes. With that information on-line, it becomes very quick and easy to establish the presence of any person at pretty much any location.

• Large, anonymous cash transactions are essentially impossible in the US these days, as is the import/export of significant amounts of money without government scrutiny.

• Much of the data that is being collected is inaccessible by the individuals it's being collected on. Much of it is stored in proprietary databases with no requirements to give anybody (other than law enforcement) access. Even data collected by security agencies and law enforcement may not be available during routine legal proceedings, since the government may make an argument that revealing the full extent of the data collected on you would hamper future data collection efforts. That is, data may be used against you, but you may not be able to obtain access to it for your own defense.

Now, I don't think this is one big conspiracy. Each of the individual decisions may make sense, but the overall result is that the government, and possibly other people with enough money, can find out just about anything about you that they want to.

This might not be quite so bad if everybody understood clearly the possibilities. But most US residents still seem to assume that their privacy is protected, that their conversations are private, and that a purchase at most results in annoying junk mail.

Similarly, the legal system and juries have no basis yet for judging the new realities. For example, setting penalties for anything from traffic violations to murder has not only been based on the severity of the infraction, but also on the likelihood being caught; penalties for speeding and car pool violations are high because people get away with them most of the time. If photo enforcement changes that, it completely changes the equation.

There is also considerable potential for abuse of such data. Information gathered by these means may not reveal illegal behavior, but law enforcement may still be used to embarrass and harrass potential witnesses or suspects.

The US strikes me like one of the countries furthest along in eroding privacy rights. For example, in many other countries, strong encryption is legal, large cash tranasactions are not subject to reporting requirements, and buying plant growing equipment doesn't automatically make you suspect of growing pot (or if it does, it may simply be legal).

Many of those mechanisms have been put into place under the umbrella of the "war against drugs", "anti-terrorism measures", and "protecting US defense secrets". But the societal costs resulting from the compromises that needed to be made to achieve those goals are not well understood. I must admit, the US government's obsession with drugs, terrorism, and defense secrets strikes me as bordering on collective paranoia.

We may well be able to live comfortably in a world in which all of our actions are very transparent and accessible to a wide variety of government agencies and businesses. But the combination of 19th/20th century laws, behaviors, and assumptions of privacy together with 21st century surveillance, tracking, and database technology strikes me as very dangerous. Either we have to regulate surveillance uses of these new technologies and enact strong privacy regulations, or our society has to undergo some profound transformation to deal with the new realities.

"It's all in your best interest to cooperate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I'm a lowly Canadian here and SOMETIMES I think that our government is a little more sane, although over time the spineless PM here knuckles under to the US for whatever reason. But these events are starting to worry me.

All of this wiretapping crap is done "in your best interest". Well, maybe I know what my best interest is, dumbass. Freedom is not without risk. You can't have it both ways. Personally, I want less governemtn invovlement and more risk - because I can make that decision.

Before the chorus starts up about Drug Dealers, Iraqi Nuclear Bombers, Sarin-Gas wielding manaics, etc, let's assume you're right. Why not give them what they want! Let's wiretap everything. Let's outlaw all encryption. Let's do away with that pesky probable cause. Let's take all the guns from the people. Let's have a drug test mailed in with your income tax. Let's censor the media.

That's not a world I want to live in. That's not what millions of people died in World War II to protect.

We're selling our souls, and it's almost to the point where only outlaws have freedom. Not to mention that gun thing - You can ask the poor people in Kosovo about what happens when you take all the guns. Ban guns in Cities - don't ban my right to OWN a gun. That's how the Wild West worked.

I'm on a rant here - but you can fucking bet that when I get my finances to the point where I'm independantly wealthy, I'll be working on the last refuge we have - transparent encryption of all communications. You've lost all your other "freedoms".

Remember kids.. Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

AC.. With damn good reason.

Too much paranoia in the world.

[jabber]

This is somewhat off-topic, but pertinent to the larger theme we're seeing here...

It's not about rights and liberties, it's about fear. It's about the expectation of the worst overshadowing the fact that people are inherently not evil. Bear with me...

Last night, while driving home from a class, I saw a car on the highway, spewing smoke out the back end. Not from the tailpipe, but from underneath the engine. It was coming out so much that when I pulled behind it, I got dropplets of oil on my windshield.

I tried to get the driver (a girl my age) to pull over. I flashed my lights, turned on my directionals and hazzards intermittently, and tried to get this girl to pull over, since I thought she might like to know that she stood to loose the engine if she didn't keep an eye on the oil level. Silly me.

Well, after a couple of minutes, and three lane changes later, the girl wasn't getting the point, and she seemed to be getting upset. So, I wrote a note on a piece of paper that said "leaking oil", showed it to her, and went on my way.

About an hour later, two state cruisers, two troopers and dog show up at my house to take my statement. Apparently, the girl thought I was trying to run her off the road, and kill her, and rape her and whatever else. So much for good intentions.

Well, they took my statement, looked at my car for damage (I should have had them look at the oil splattered on the windshield, but in the moment, it didn't come to mind - I should have kept the note, but I tossed it at a gas station since I didn't need it anymore), and left.

It made me understand how people can stand by and watch as someone gets beaten or killed in the street, and not lift a finger. It's not worth the hassle to go out of your way for another person anymore. It's not worth watching out for your 'fellow man' anymore.

I'm a parochially schooled, college degreed, well paid professional software engineer. I have a steady girlfriend, a nice car, a normal life, and (god forbid!) good intentions. But, with the rampant paranoia (at least in the U.S.) these days, it's hadly worth the hassle of watching out for anyone buy the proverbial 'number one'. It's a mistake I'll have to be careful not to make again.

And how does this pertain to the article subject matter? Well, as long as the government insists on making us feel insecure in our own country, with Commies, and Iraqi terrorists, and biological weapons around every corner, we will keep suspecting each other of cruel intentions. As long as we keep being afraid, the government will keep trying to protect us from each other. As long as the government keeps trying to keep us safe, we will feel our rights erode, and we will be even more paranoid.

We need common sense, and good upbringing. We need to NOT be punished for trying to help. We need to stop crucifying good Samaritans, and start acting like them. We need to stop looking over our shoulder, and start looking into our common good - not just as individuals, but as a nation, and as a world.

And if someone who can afford a satellite phone wants to sneak information past Echelon, they can hire a personal courier.